Comparison of air pollution exposures in active vs. passive travel modes in European cities: A quantitative review. (February 2017) - de Nazelle, Audrey
Abstract: Background: Transport microenvironments tend to have higher air pollutant concentrations than other settings most people encounter in their daily lives. The choice of travel modes may affect significantly individuals' exposures; however such considerations are typically not accounted for in exposure assessment used in environmental health studies. In particular, with increasing interest in the promotion of active travel, health impact studies that attempt to estimate potential adverse consequences of potential increased pollutant inhalation during walking or cycling have emerged. Such studies require a quantification of relative exposures in travel modes. Methods: The literature on air pollution exposures in travel microenvironments in Europe was reviewed. Studies which measured various travel modes including at least walking or cycling in a simultaneous or quasi-simultaneous design were selected. Data from these studies were harmonized to allow for a quantitative synthesis of the estimates. Ranges of ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI) of air pollution exposure between modes and between background and transportation modes were estimated. Results: Ten studies measuring fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ), black carbon (BC), ultrafine particles (UFP), and/or carbon monoxide (CO) in the walk, bicycle, car and/or bus modes were included in the analysis. Only three reported on CO and BC and results should be interpreted with caution. Pedestrians were shown to be the most consistently least exposed of all across studies, with the bus, bicycle and car modes on average 1.3 to 1.5 times higher for PM2.5 ; 1.1 to 1.7 times higher for UFP; and 1.3 to 2.9 times higher for CO; however the 95% CI included 1 for the UFP walk to bus ratio. Only for BC were pedestrians more exposed than bus users on average (bus to walk ratio 0.8), but remained less exposed than those on bicycles or in cars. Car users tended to be the most exposed (from 2.9 times higher than pedestrians for BC down to similar exposures to cyclists for UFP on average). Bus exposures tended to be similar to that of cyclists (95% CI including 1 for PM2.5, CO and BC), except for UFP where they were lower (ratio 0.7). Conclusion: A quantitative method that synthesizes the literature on air pollution exposure in travel microenvironments for use in health impact assessments or potentially for epidemiology was conducted. Results relevant for the European context are presented, showing generally greatest exposures in car riders and lowest exposure in pedestrians. Highlights: A quantitative review provides average ratios of exposures between travel modes. Pedestrians are on average less exposed than car and bus users and cyclists. Car users are more exposed than cyclists and pedestrians on average. Cyclist and bus rider exposure contrasts depend on pollutant but are similar. Ratios can be used to assess travel mode choice impacts on exposures and health.